Justify your choice of film

[Agulliver]

I tried Silvermax in ID-11 a few years ago....it was very good but I suspect the Adox developer would be even better.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

It is. But it is also an APX 100 revival, because the Scala 200X has had the APX 100 emulsion, just with a higher silver content for reversal processing (and coated on a clear base). In a blind test you most probably will not be able to tell the difference from APX 100 and Silvermax prints. My Silvermax prints don't look different from my former APX 100 prints.

Best regards,
Henning

Interesting, though sadly not in 120: http://www.adox.de/Photo/scala-formats/

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning, does Silvermax require an ADOX developer for optimal results like the CMSII, or I can use Xtol with it? Their marketing materials keep pushing "dedicated SILVERMAX Developer". Thanks.

You can develop ADOX Silvermax film in any developer including XTOL. The Silvermax developer is specifically designed for the Silvermax film to deliver about 14 full stops of contrast range.
I am using mainly FX-39 II for Silvermax. I love the tonality, sharpness and accentuated, but not coarse grain of this film developer combination for certain projects.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[KenS]

How do you decide which films to shoot? Putting large-format aside (cost & availability are big factors there) and only looking at 35mm and medium format: why are you shooting what you're shooting?

In my case:

1. HP5+ for nearly all of my medium format needs. Gorgeous tonality, tough scratch-resistant emulsion, easily available recipes for any developer, and also one of the cheapest 120 films, at least in the US. Only $6 per roll.
   
2. Delta 100/400 for 35mm because of quality/cost ratio when purchased in bulk 100ft rolls. Comparable Kodak products are more expensive.
   
3. Ultrafine Extreme 100/400 for both 35mm and 120 for quality/cost ratio when you're willing to burn a full roll just to get one shot you want.

What is your reasoning?

P.S. Asking because I keep experimenting with films, and nothing (so far) beats reasons 1-2-3 above. But since other films have market for them (i.e. someone keeps buying them), I figured I should ask what their fans see in them I'm missing. Thanks!

Being now 'well and truly' retired... but still 'active' with either of my LF cameras, I tend to 'stick' with either Kodak or Ilford... but unfortunately, the only store in town (as of to-day) does not carry any sheet film in stock... "But we can get it for you"... and the staff
seems to be more 'interested' in either Digital and/or 'turn around' 35mm colour negative processing and printing. Yes.. they do have a couple of boxes of B/W (8x10 only) paper but it is NOT the more popular Kodak or Ilford

Ken

 

[removed account4]

I rarely purchase film that isn't short date or expired, in all formats. I am probably an outlier because it really doesn't matter to me what the film is, I just put it in a camera and make exposes. whether the film is in date or expired 10 years I set my personal internal light meter to sunny 4 and split process everything in either ansco 130 / sumatranol130 or d72 / Dsumatranol. I develop everything the same way... 5 mins ( 1:10 ) agitate normally 1min+10/1min and continuously in the coffee for the remaining 5 mins. sometimes. ... I'd stand develop the film in reels in the dsumatranol or sumatranol130 for about 30mins. and get good results too. they print in a DR nice or they scan nice ... I get negatives the way I like and can't complain -
like with everything on the inter webs - - - - YMMVFTSTDW

 

[wyofilm]

Of the last few years I have been doing things backwards for B&W. I like the convenience of liquid developers and use DD-X and rodinal. I am bringing back HC-110 back into the fold - maybe. For lower speed I use FP4 (DD-X moving to Rodinal) and now Delta 100 (DD-X). For faster speed, HP5+ (DD-X/Rodinal) and now testing out Delta 400 (DD-X). All of this is for MF. For LF mainly only HP5+. I have a bunch of Acros (original) in 120 that I will have to work my way through. I tried it just before Fuji pulled the plug. I bought a bunch of it because that first roll (DD-X) was stellar, pleasant contrast with endless mid-tones. Ferannia P30 is still a tough nut for me to crack. I WANT to like it, but haven't controlled the blacks yet in prints.

For color neg, either Portra 400 or Ektar. I shoot slide film (Provia/Ektachrome) in a point and shoot.

I have a bunch of 1 or 2 rolls of misc color films, just to try them out. Cinistill, Surperia , Natura. I really need to use these up.

 

[destroya]

for 35mm B&W I shoot a few different films. tmax 100 and 400, Tri-X, Xtreme 100 and I have 2 last bulk rolls of original APX 100 for special occasions. color is ektar and provia velvia 50

in MF, for handheld its tmax 400. largest I print is 16x20 and this film handles that with ease. I love the tonality I get with it. Trix when I want to add grain. slow film, I have lots of tmax 100 and acros and a few of panF. for special landscape shots like yosemite, I dig into my stash of APX 25. its a thing of beauty in MF. color, same as 35mm, ektar provia and velvia 50.. for portraits I do use astia.

all B&W is developed in pyro-m. color with kodak C41 chems and slide film with fuji hunt 6 bath e-6

john

 

[Donald Qualls]

Putting large-format aside (cost & availability are big factors there) and only looking at 35mm and medium format: why are you shooting what you're shooting?

I shoot Fomapan 100 and 400 for everything (as rebranded by Freestyle, .EDU Ultra), because it's one of, if not the least costly film on the market, and it does everything I want from B&W. Sure, I have a few rolls of 120 size Tri-X around, and recently bought 5 rolls each of 135 and 120 XP2 Super to try out (shot one roll, another in process, haven't developed any yet) -- but .EDU Ultra is what I always keep on hand and buy in bulk rolls for 35mm. Since I found it in 2004, I've had at least a couple rolls of 120 and a few cassettes of 135 on hand at all times.

It has nice tones, works well in multiple developers (I've tried it in D-23, HC-110, Parodinal, Xtol, and Caffenol), the 100 pushes well (400 not quite as well), grain is pleasing (in HC-110, Parodinal, and Xtol, at least -- mushy in D-23, and very gritty, at least in scans, in Caffenol) -- really, it does everything an everyday film should -- and did I mention it costs the least per frame of any B&W stock I've seen? The only cost competition is Ultrafine Extreme, which I haven't yet tried (they seem to have a stock problem recently).

BTW, I shoot .EDU Ultra in 4x5, too, for the same reasons as above. Why spend twice as much when the rebranded Foma does the job?

 

[GLS]

My main choices (all in 120) are as follows:

Black and white: Acros 100 and TMax-400, as I like their smoothness and tonality, especially when developed in pyro chemistry. The reciprocity characteristics of Acros are also unmatched in B&W. For IR I use Rollei IR 400, which is a superb film. When I want extreme resolution and a certain look I use Agfa Copex Rapid developed in SPUR Dokuspeed SL-N; the results from this combination are frankly bindblowing, but it is expensive due to developer cost.

C-41 colour: Ektar 100 and Portra 400; the former for landscapes when I want saturated colours but not quite at E6 levels (or the contrast is too much), and the latter for more general use and/or when a bit more speed is warranted.

E6 colour: Provia 100F for general use, Velvia 50 for lower contrast lighting. 100F also shares the reciprocity characteristics of Acros, which can be extremely useful. I have recently bought a propack of the new E100 to compare, but have yet to try it.

Having said all that, I do shoot a variety of other films (as I like to experiment). These include FP4, Pan F, Delta 100/400/3200, HP5, TMax-100, Retro 80S, Portra 160 & 800, and Fuji 400H.

 

[Jos Segers]

I shoot only Black and White medium format. My preferred film is conventional non-tabular FP4+ which I develop in a modified Pyro developer. The amount of sodium sulphite is low which makes it non-solvent. The grain is masked by the stain. Stain is proportional to the density of the silver image. The combination of this conventional non-tabular film and the strong staining effect of Pyrogallic acid leads to subtle highlight separation. I rate the film at half box speed.

 

[Disconnekt]

I shoot 35mm b&w, so my main choice is Ultrafine Extreme 100 (100' bulk roll) since it's so cheap for me to get.
Got a few rolls of the Extreme 400 to try out.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Very subjective...
I started with Tri-X 35 years ago and never stopped.
Then added Plus-X. These two film are my mainstream in 35 and MF.
For specific projects that need speed I much prefer Delta 3200 over TMZ.
I love the look of Panatomic-X when I can grab some, amazed that it doesn't age at all.
In LF, I found a big stack of Trix-Ortho and wish that film could go back from the dead, absolutely amazing rendering and grit.
Have also been using Foma 400 in LF and I'm surprised by the effective speed I can get. I do like it very much. Didn't try the 200 everybody seems to rave about.
So, I'm mostly a Kodak guy. Everything souped in Rodinal or Pyro.

 

[nosmok]

I shoot the overlap of what I liked when I came back to film in the Aughts (and got a bad evilBay habit), and what I can develop in Caffenol-- almost all expired Kodak (Panatomic X a special favorite, Guillaume above is right, it doesn't age) B/W and some Ilford (I get great results with long expired XP2 in 35mm and 120. I do many formats, from half frame 35mm (Tmax 100 is great for this, expired is too iffy in small neg) out to 8x10 (a couple times, need to do more) but if pushed I'd have to say I'm a medium format guy primarily-- 36 exposures per roll is just too much, and a camera the size of a couple of espresso machines has its drawbacks as well!

 

[JWMster]

My early life photography was focused on cinema and B&W was the only realistic option for a teen. I have gravitated back to film from digital (though it remains a 2-way street) because of the aesthetic grain-based film offers in digital ink prints is more pleasing to my eye, and because I am using DSLR scanning these days, too). Eyes drive a process, and if it works, I swing with it. Tri-X was the holy grail as a youngster, but in movie film, really too grainy to become a "true love". I shot slower stuff in 100 foot rolls of Double Super 8 which was Super-16mm film split after development. Moving back to stills as an adult, I'd vouch that Tri-X runs better, but given my later return well after Kodak's bankruptcy has pushed me to feel more affinity for Ilford's commitment to the business and assuring their success, so I'm committed to Ilford B&W films. I'm trying to use Kodak color... but we'll see whether Kodak or Fuji stick with it. For B&W, I started with Delta 400 as a boxspeed film and have a freezer full of the stuff as my main squeeze in MF where slow lenses kind of push you for more ISO. Now that I'm shooting LF and there's no Delta 400, it's a different matter. For me 35mm and MF are "sketches" and practice for shooting LF, so I want to shoot the same films. This means FP4+ (which is beautiful and I just really love it) and HP5+, too. I haven't shot much HP5+ yet because I've really been working on the FP4+ to D23 and DLSR scan process. Love getting that nailed and stable. Credit Tim Layton for some help and guidance there, plus plenty of mostly a bunch of Brit publications otherwise... but absolutely might have bagged it without help of a lot of folks on this forum, too (Thank you!). Next stop is HP5 to help shoot at a wider range of F-stop / shutter speed combos and avoid some of the camera shake issues when hand holding 35mm.

Wish you luck in this. Not sure this is much help.

 

[markjwyatt]

I kind of like FP4+, but also HP5plus. I like Adox Silvermax (just shot some), but it is intermittently available. Some Tri-X because I can usually buy it somewhat locally. For color I mainly go digital, but use some Fuji Superia XTRA 400 (available locally, and pretty decent) and some Ektar.
For 120, I am trying FP4+ to start, but may go to HP5plus. I may need some ND filters since the MF cameras I use go to 1/250th or 1/500th of a second. Usually, I use a MedY, so that helps. I have used Tri-X and Fomopan 400 (both available somewhat locally). I used to shoot a lot of VPS, but have not shot color in 120 in years.
Played with some Bergger 400. I liked it in 35mm, but not so much in 120 (base fog was too high- may have been processing).

 

[fs999]

My all-rounder was Rollei Retro 80S for its infrared sensitivity and skin tones. Since I bought a batch (40 films in 120 format) all with paper markings imprints and the seller didn't want to take them back, I'm not using this film anymore.

Now I use my few last CMS 20 II and Agfa Copex Rapid (not the same film but very good).

I'm also using Tri-X @100, 200 and 400 ISO for the retro tones and Ilford XP2 @100, 200 and 400 ISO for the modern tones and contrast. and also Bergger Pancro 400 for the grain.

And some old films like Rollei R3, R100.

Naturally all my films are developed in Caffenol (CL, CLCS and CLCN).

 

[Mark_S]

I used to shoot almost exclusively 4x5. In the summer, I would shoot Tri-X, and in the winter, I shot Plus-X. I lived in Maine, so in the summer time, the biggest battle was keeping detail in the shadows, and there is nothing that could beat Tri-X for that. In the winter, where landscapes often had a lot of snow, the issue was the opposite - I wanted to capture the texture in the snow, and for maintaining detail in the highlights, I found Plus-X to be the best. I developed them both in HC-110, and I was a happy photog. Then Kodak discontinued Plus-X (in 4x5), and I went on a splurge testing all kinds of films to replace my plus-X. I found that Ilford HP5+, also developed in HC-110, was almost as good as plus X for the highlights, I just bumped the ASA up a bit, and HP5+. with the speed a bit slower than box was almost as good with the shadows as Tri-X, so I started using HP5+ year round. As I get older, I am shooting more MF than LF, but I am keeping to the HP5+ / HC110 combination, regardless of season, or format.

 

[laingsoft]

Fomapan and Caffenol go nicely together, and they're probably the cheapest way to shoot film. Hp5 and Rodinal are my favorites though.

 

[Donald Qualls]

For me, Parodinal is cheaper per roll than Caffenol. But .EDU Ultra (Fomapan, rebranded and discounted a little) goes very well in Parodinal, too.

 

[Tony-S]

B&W: Acros in Perceptol 1+2, 16 min at 75F. I'm also a fan of Delta 100 in XTOL.
Color: Velvia 50, Portra, Provia.

I have a bunch of Efke 25 and 100 in 120 and 4x5 but haven't really started using it.

 

[fs999]

For me, Parodinal is cheaper per roll than Caffenol.

Even in 1+100 compared to Caffenol CL, not sure it is cheaper. What is sure, it is toxic and dangerous to prepare but not Caffenol.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Even in 1+100 compared to Caffenol CL, not sure it is cheaper. What is sure, it is toxic and dangerous to prepare but not Caffenol.

No question, Caffenol is safer. I used to buy my acetaminophen for $11 per thousand tablets @ 500 mg per tablet. Lye was $5 for a can, and sodium sulfite fairly cheap as well. I figured with those ingredient costs, I could process a roll at 1:50 for about a nickel developer cost (fixer, of course, is the same regardless, though I made my own from sodium thiosulfate crystals and that was cheap, too). Now, buying acetaminophen in slightly smaller quantity, I figure it's more like seven to eight cents a roll for Parodinal at 1:50.

Caffenol isn't much more, if any -- but Vitamin C powder isn't cheap.

 

[fs999]

No question, Caffenol is safer. I used to buy my acetaminophen for $11 per thousand tablets @ 500 mg per tablet. Lye was $5 for a can, and sodium sulfite fairly cheap as well. I figured with those ingredient costs, I could process a roll at 1:50 for about a nickel developer cost (fixer, of course, is the same regardless, though I made my own from sodium thiosulfate crystals and that was cheap, too). Now, buying acetaminophen in slightly smaller quantity, I figure it's more like seven to eight cents a roll for Parodinal at 1:50.

Ok then I have better not to buy them on amazon

I bought in 2018 Vitamin C powder 1 Kg for 11 € on ebay, and still using it

 

[Donald Qualls]

What I've been looking for, and for which I would gladly pay some premium in price per gram, is a US source of acetaminophen in powder form. So far, the only one I've found is one- or two-dose packaging for convenience store sale, and that's priced out of sight when I want to use a dozen grams (6 of the two-dose packages at about $2 each) even for 200 ml of developer concentrate.

 

[laingsoft]

You can try looking at chinese suppliers. Have you tried looking under the name paracetamol? You're probably more likely to find lab grade stuff listed under that.